logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가합553883
특허침해금지 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, filed a patent registration under the Patent Number No. 1749684 on June 15, 2017, with respect to an invention named “the manufacturing method of a magic call,” with respect to the Plaintiff’s invention as to “the manufacturing method of a magic call,” and filed a claim against the Defendant for prohibition of infringement and destruction, such as the entries in the purport of the claim, and for payment of KRW 100,00,000 as part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s infringement of patent rights, by asserting that the Magic call product manufactured and sold in accordance with the manufacturing method listed in the separate sheet by the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s above patent right(s).

However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraphs B and 3, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the Plaintiff’s patent right under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2017Da2998 on September 20, 2017, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial ruling that the patent of the invention No. 1749684 on March 23, 2018 should be invalidated on the ground that the Plaintiff’s patented invention was denied by the prior inventions publicly notified prior to the filing of the application, and that the said trial ruling became final and conclusive on May 1, 2018 because the Plaintiff’s patented invention was not dissatisfied with the above trial ruling.

In addition, the main text of Article 133(3) of the Patent Act provides that if a trial decision invalidating a patent becomes final and conclusive, the patent right shall be deemed never to have existed.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s trial decision invalidating the Plaintiff’s patent number No. 1749684 becomes final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff’s patent right is deemed never to have existed from the beginning in accordance with the main sentence of Article 133(3) of the Patent Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the existence of patent right is without merit without examining the remainder.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow